Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

The title of the journal Interaction. Interiew. Interpretation has a con­ceptual sense. From our point of view, what is important here is the meaning of these terms, which reflect the process of qualitative-interpretive research. Focusing on acts of social interaction, the qualitative research is conducted with the help of ‘soft’ techniques for obtaining information and insight. It aims at understanding the life-worlds of social actors and implies an ethic of professional action. Accentuated INTER is a single component, which refers back, in the first place, to intersubjectivity and to social interaction as basic elements of sociality; then, to an awareness of the different contexts and di­mensions of interpretations, as well as to the commitment to certain approaches of investigation, and, finally, to a communication network within the international com­munity of sociologists who share similar research interests.

The journal is not limited to sociologists but rather invites a wide circle of scholars in other fields: anthropologists, historians, linguists, cultural and social workers, psy­chologists, political scientists, all who are oriented towards the study of micro-sociality and to phenomena such as the (hidden) multiculturality of local communities. Invited are methodological discussions and debates on the various approaches to social phe­nomena. We pay special attention to innovative research practices in diverse fields of scientific knowledge, such as the use of non-conventional techniques and sources of information (visual documents, in-depth interviews, life stories) as well as new as­pects of scientific interest (including, for instance, subjective conceptions of social space and time). In short, the main aim of the journal is to be informative about the developing and rapidly changing field of contemporary social sciences.

The journal has its own topology. There are regular sections dedicated to Theoret­ical Discourses and Discussions, The Individual and Society, and Field Research. We also have rubrics that reflect the specific fea­tures of qualitative-interpretive sociology: Visual Sociology, Public Sociology, Life Story of the Issue, Research Reflection. Our traditional rubrics include book reviews, information on conferences and events connected to the quali­tative research, and letters to the editors.

The journal should mainly serve as an intermediate instrument in the process of organiz­ing a communicative network for interpretative researchers, through the discussion of research activities. In inviting contributions, we would like to emphasize that there are no closed or unimportant themes for qualitative sociology. Diversity of content, methodological creativity, social reflections and endeavors to­wards understanding and deciphering social meaning are important for are and allowing open up further horizons. 

Sections

Theoretical Discourses and Debates

Meanings of Spaces and Spaces of Meanings

Field Work Research

Research Reflection

Research Discourse: Generations

First Steps

Visual Sociology

Book Reviews

Peer Review Process

Peer review process

Review process

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are sent for review. The review process takes an average of 45 days from the date of submission of the article. In some cases, the review period may be increased.

Review stages:

1. During the initial review, the editorial board of the journal determines whether the article meets the requirements and topics of the journal. In case of inconsistency, the article is rejected without reviewing.

2. In case of compliance, the material is sent to two reviewers.

3. The review procedure is mixed. Both internal (reviewers are members of the editorial board and editorial board of the journal, who are specialists in the relevant field of research), and external (reviewers from among the leading experts in the profile of the article) peer review are used. The editors adhere to the rule that all reviewers must be qualified specialists in the subject of the reviewed materials and have, within the last 3 years, publications on the subject of the reviewed article. Reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief.

4. The review indicates the relevance of the article, the reliability of the research results, the degree of their novelty, scientific and practical significance. The main disadvantages of the material (if any) are also indicated.

5. Based on the results of the review, a conclusion can be made that the article can be accepted for publication without corrections / with minimal corrections, or requires significant revision, or is rejected.

6. In case of a positive review, the article is submitted to a meeting of the editorial board to resolve the issue of publication.

7. If there are comments from the reviewer that require revision of the article, it is sent to the author to solve them. After receiving the opinion of the reviewer, the issue of publication is considered at the meeting of the editorial board.

8. If the review is negative, the work is sent for additional expertise. In case of two negative reviews, the author is given a reasoned refusal. If the second review is positive, the issue of publication is submitted to the meeting of the editorial board.

9. The editors send copies of reviews to authors by e-mail.

10. The originals of reviews are stored in the editorial office in electronic form for 5 years.

11. If a request is received, copies of the reviews are sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

12. The editors reserve the right to make changes to the submitted materials, make abbreviations, reject thematically inappropriate or not properly executed manuscripts, while observing the rules of editorial ethics.

Publication Frequency

Quarterly. Founded in 2002.

Open Access Policy

The journal provides free of charge open access to its content based on the following principle: free open access to research results promotes global knowledge sharing. Full-text articles and all other published materials are available at the journal’s official website immediately after its publication.

The materials published at the journal’s website permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

Open-access license: Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 CC-BY

Publication ethics

The editorial board keeps to the ethical principles of COPE (http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct), conventional ethical standards of scientific publishing.

Editors accountable for all the materials published in the journal. This means the editors are strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; strive to constantly improve their journal; have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish; champion freedom of expression; maintain the integrity of the academic record; preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards; always are willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

The editorial board takes as a premise that the authors and peer reviewers are familiar with the requirements to them. The editorial board and the editorial team take unbiased decisions based solely on the professional level and quality of the submitted manuscripts regardless of the race, gender, nationality, citizenship, religious and political views of the authors.

The editorial board, taking a decision on the publication of articles guided by the following rules: reliability of the data; scientific significance and scientific novelty of the work presented. The editorial board is obliged to provide for excluding any conflict of interests between the sides of the double-blind peer review process.

Author or co-author of the reviewed work, as well as scientific supervisors of author, cannot act as reviewers.

The editorial board discontinues preparation of the manuscript for publication in the detection of denounces of publication ethics, such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, misappropriation of research results and fraud.

The editorial board is avoid using the data from submitted manuscripts and not pass them to the third parties (excluding peer reviewers) before publishing.

Any essential correctives to the manuscript are made solely after the author’s authorization. Should the author or the editorial team disagree with these amendments, they both possess the right to withdraw the article.

The publications in Journal are free from payments; any attempt to offer such payment could result in rejection of the submitted manuscript.

Published articles may not represent the point of view of the founders, editorial board or editorial team. However, the editors bears full responsibility for all published articles.

Plagiarism

The Editorial Board of the journal will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. All submissions we receive are checked for plagiarism by using https://fnisc.antiplagiat.ru. Any suspected misconduct ends up with a quick rejection.

Ethical principles of the author

The authors do not provide previously published and proposed for publication works in other journals for publication in the journal.

If authors correctly use their own previously published materials (formatted with appropriate references), the share of new (original) text should be at least 70%.

The authors should indicate the contribution of all persons whose works are the basis for research. Those people, who do not participate in research as co-authors, shall not be stated.

Manuscript reflects results of an original scientific study.

Bibliographic references must be given for all academic works which influenced the research in some way. All borrowed content must be quoted according to rules of citing with reference to author and source. Manuscript does not contain any unformatted quotes. Unformed quotes and assignment of rights to other people's research results are unacceptable.

The authors must rely on representative results of the conducted research. It is forbidden to use and disclose invalid data deliberately.

Graphic material in a manuscript is original; author’s rights to it either belong to authors of the manuscript, or it was prepared by the authors on the basis of literature data, which is proved by comprehensive bibliographic references.

The authors attach their personal information to the article (place of work, address, position, e-mail, etc.), which are permitted for publication in the journal.

The authors agree that their article is sent for review (the reviewer's name is not revealed) and they are undertaking to collaborate with editors to improve, reduce or supplement their articles according to the reviewers' comments, as well as to correct all inaccuracies. In the event of errors or inaccuracies in the article, which is under consideration or has already been published, the authors must promptly notify the journal’s editors.

Author expects no author’s fee.

Violation of these ethical principles leads to rejection of manuscript and further interaction with the author.

Ethical principles of the reviewer

Manuscripts are reviewed only by experts in corresponding subdisciplines. Two reviewers provides a review to each of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer cannot be a member of an established scientific team, which authors of a reviewed manuscript (or their frequent co-author in other works) belong to.

Reviewer cannot be a scientific adviser (scientific consultant) of any of the authors.

The reviewer, who is not well-qualified to evaluate the manuscript or cannot be objective, must inform the editor and ask to exclude him from the process of reviewing this manuscript.

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment to research results. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable. Review should contain an objective and profound analysis of scientific article, its academic and methodological strong and weak points.

Compliance of the manuscript with the requirements of the journal on the subject and scope is analyzed in the review, as well as the scientific innovation, persuasion of experimental data, literacy, logicality and clarity of text, and representativeness of bibliography are evaluated.

The result of the consideration of the manuscript by the reviewer is the conclusion about its publication possibility as presented, with completion, after critical revision (re-examination), or its rejection. This conclusion is approved by the editorial team of the journal.

Reviewer must not use information on manuscript’s content before its publication in his own interests. Reviewed manuscript is a confidential document which cannot be distributed to third parties for consideration or discussion.

Канал журнала в Telegram: t.me/inter0000